Duality - Two sides of the whole.

[Andrew M.]

This thought has rooted itself in the core of my mentality for as long as i can remember, though I didn't have a sturdy concept of the idea untill I was old enough to understand, I would look back at my childhood actions and how i was and everything always was and is based off the ying yang principle with me. My grandmother as i knew her was a kind and spiritualy curious and open minded woman, she would have approved of this forum and probably be a regular member i'm sure, and was deeply interested in astrology collecting many books on that subject and others. Most of these astrology books look like a foreign mathematical language that would require you to be an astronomer to comprehend. (she left me most of her books when she passed.) Well I havn't read a lot into them sadly, only the basics of what the signs mean, more so the Libra-Balancing Scales section that i fall under, my birthday being Oct. 4th. The scales I represent in the same terms as the ying yang, only the two plates can each hold -anything-, no negative vs. positive or opposites aspect and the balance is ever fluctuating as the plates are being filled. With two types of scales or just two types of use which would be balancing one thing in seperate parts (minor scale) or balancing two seperate things in their whole (master scale).

I've thought of the concept of a "Grand Scale"(which would be a master scale) where the grand plates contain balancing scale networks. Scales balancing concepts such as good and bad, each opposing concept getting its own scale or even series of scales in some cases that balance different asspects of one of the concepts. After looking at it like awhile this and breaking it down the "Grand Scale" doesn't seem to fluctuate so much, it's more like a vibration along the moving parts of the scale as the non-moving part holds it securely in place giving each plate equal potential.

You could represent the moving and non moving parts of the grand scale as being and non-being, non-being giving being purpose ande vice` versa, Though I havn't delved too deep into that particular concept.

After comming to the forum and learning about the densities I've given a lot of thought to the concept of 7th density being when the grand scale is completely balanced and the scale stops moving. For me the scale disappears entirely after that because it's no longer needed or it's learned so unneccesary to learn again though it should still be reviewed from time to time and that's where the "starting over" concept might come in. The thing is I can't seem to comprehend in any aspect what-so-ever the concept of "no scale" that comes after the scale has run it's course so-to-say. I wonder if it's the ultimate understanding of "All" or the ultimate understanding of "none" which brings back a need for the scale. I know I won't be able to understand untill I get there but I can't help using the balancing scales concept for anything i think about, I don't even try to do it anymore, when a thought comes the weighing starts, as a consequence I'm indecicive a lot and nothing seems fully figured out or "weighed. These 3rd density understanding restrictions are maddening.

When the C's suggested contemplating duality I sunk in my chair, and lately I've been picking it apart more than normal, trying to find all the missing pieces but it brings me to the question: What is it that we're supposed to understand about duality? Any thoughts?

 

[Eva]

I have recently been thinking a lot about duality.
So far I have come to realise the lack of it in concepts that 'seem' to be opposing but in fact stem from the same core value.
Trivial quick example - any response to an action considered detrimental that seeks to annihilate the source of it. The sources of action and reaction seem to be diametrically opposite but they are in fact side by side in the very same stage playing war.

The more I ponder on duality the more I tend to see it as convergence through dichotomy instead of seperation of opposites.

Another thought would be wave-particle duality perhaps. What if your scale would hold matter and the scale itself would be consciousness - the observer. In that sense it would be the scale itself that would regulate the balance by focusing its view on either plate. The measured quality in that case would be harmony (waves) as opposed to chaos (particles in chaotic movement).
I'm thinking wave-particle as 3D placeholders for intrinsic potential behaviours of life , co-existing as potential but manifesting as either one or the other at any given time. I suppose total non-anticipation would make the scale act as a bridge instead of a regulator.

I wonder if a concept of no scale as you put it would really be necessary. If All is One , and One is everything that Is and Isn't , then learning what Isn't but can potentially Be is an eternal process in my mind.

I am not sure if this provides any insight, had a sleepless night and your post inspired me - apologies for hijacking it if what I said made little sense.

 

[Andrew M.]

I have recently been thinking a lot about duality.
So far I have come to realise the lack of it in concepts that 'seem' to be opposing but in fact stem from the same core value.
Trivial quick example - any response to an action considered detrimental that seeks to annihilate the source of it. The sources of action and reaction seem to be diametrically opposite but they are in fact side by side in the very same stage playing war.

The more I ponder on duality the more I tend to see it as convergence through dichotomy instead of seperation of opposites.

This is basically how I see it as well, you can't have one without the other, otherwise there would be no whole and the whole has to have at least two opposing parts. If it were made of only one substance then there would be no confliction between anything and no experience would be generated. No experience means no knowledge.

So you would have to think about it in 2 ways, how the sides oppose and how they are the same. Which would basically be like reading the bible once in relation to jesus then reading it again in relation to the devil and somehow understand the same thing through the differences.

Another thought would be wave-particle duality perhaps. What if your scale would hold matter and the scale itself would be consciousness - the observer. In that sense it would be the scale itself that would regulate the balance by focusing its view on either plate. The measured quality in that case would be harmony (waves) as opposed to chaos (particles in chaotic movement).
I'm thinking wave-particle as 3D placeholders for intrinsic potential behaviours of life , co-existing as potential but manifesting as either one or the other at any given time. I suppose total non-anticipation would make the scale act as a bridge instead of a regulator.

Thinking about the scale as conciousness puts an interesting spin on things, but the only way i can see that working is "the observer" being very busy and may have to balance itself as well. The reason I made that last sentance bold is because the libra symbol depicts a blindfolded woman holding the scales. What I understand from that is that the balancer or balancing force must be completely nuetral or have no mind of what it weighs otherwise the balance would be altered. This is the main reason my scale is never still. I can't seem to figure out how to balance one thing to another while having no opinion of either. The only result I see is complete balance because I wouldn't be able to perceive either side as being more or less weight than the other.

My theory is basicaly 1=2 and 2=1, my logic to this theory is nearly non-existant as just trying to comprehend it is mentally taxing but I feel this is important for me to understand in regards to duality. When I think of 1=2 and 2=1 I get a mixed message of "dumb thought" and "intelligent assesment" wich I suppose would be fitting as far as duality is concerned.

I wonder if a concept of no scale as you put it would really be necessary. If All is One , and One is everything that Is and Isn't , then learning what Isn't but can potentially Be is an eternal process in my mind.

I am not sure if this provides any insight, had a sleepless night and your post inspired me - apologies for hijacking it if what I said made little sense.

The way I see 7th is knowing all things and knowing no thing at the same time. (don't ask me how that works!) To know all you would have to be conciously aware of all aspects of all realities and understand them ultimately, and to know no thing you would have to be unconcious basically. How can one be conciously unconcious? or vice` versa?

As you said it really does seem to be an eternal thought process. I do hope I understand it one day though.

No apology needed :) I'm happy to think I caused a little inspiration. Thank you for your thoughts, a new perspective is always welcome.

 

[Buddy]

You could represent the moving and non moving parts of the grand scale as being and non-being, non-being giving being purpose ande vice` versa, Though I havn't delved too deep into that particular concept.

Hi Andrew. I hope this doesn't add to the confusion. If it does, just ask me to clarify.

Strictly speaking, I don't think being and non-being represent a duality, even though it reads like it the way you wrote it. "Being" would be "substance" whereas, Non-being is "thought of no-substance". If this is true, then you actually have three parts: Being (actual), thought of non-being (a lie from a negative view point), and thought of being (a lie from a positive viewpoint).

In this scenario, it would be in the realm of 'thought' where one finds duality. The actual "ground" of this figure/reflective figure relationship is all Harmonious Being: Universe; and this whole concept would then reaffirm the Third Force thing on a cosmic scale, OSIT.

If this is confusing, then just pick a "duality" to work with. Say, 'I' vs 'You'. Aside from the narcissistic split that sees 'self' as opposed to 'others', or 'self' as opposed to 'Universe', what is the observable evidence that shows that the 'I' is little more than a linguistic convention?

How can one be conciously unconcious?

By disassociating into a 'blank' space, perhaps?

 

[obyvatel]

What is it that we're supposed to understand about duality? Any thoughts?

My thoughts on this topic: duality exists in creation. Light and dark, heat and cold, STO and STS - all exist and neither is a blight or fault that needs to be fixed. At the level of 7D or Prime Creator, all is in balance. But at the level of an individual 3D existence, such a complete balance is not discernible or achievable. At the level of 3D, one needs to choose his orientation. Without a conscious choice, we are STS by default according to the laws of our existence. But we could choose to aspire towards STO by working on discernment and will. If we try to balance the scale at our 3D level, it would keep us at the default orientation.
The concept of homeostasis may be useful as an analogy. In the human body, different parts work in a complementary fashion to maintain equilibrium of different biological parameters like blood pressure, blood sugar, pH etc. The sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems work in opposite directions - one stimulating flight or fight type emergency response and the other a relaxed and rested response. At the level of the whole human body, homeostasis and consequently health is a result of proper functioning of the individual parts. But consider as a hypothetical example that the sympathetic nervous system decided on its own to balance the scales by itself. So it stops to provide the necessary chemicals to stimulate appropriate body responses to emergency type situations since it decides that stress is bad. The result could be disastrous for the whole body.
So while contemplating duality and balance, one needs to consider where he stands in relation to the overall system of which he is a part and what role he could consciously play in his position - osit.

 

[Andrew M.]

Strictly speaking, I don't think being and non-being represent a duality, even though it reads like it the way you wrote it. "Being" would be "substance" whereas, Non-being is "thought of no-substance". If this is true, then you actually have three parts: Being (actual), thought of non-being (a lie from a negative view point), and thought of being (a lie from a positive viewpoint).

In this scenario, it would be in the realm of 'thought' where one finds duality. The actual "ground" of this figure/reflective figure relationship is all Harmonious Being: Universe; and this whole concept would then reaffirm the Third Force thing on a cosmic scale, OSIT.

This is an interesting point of view, even better, it fits in with everything else. I guess for me I see 'non-being' as essential for 'being' to exist. The three parts: 1'being' (the knowledge of being in a positive and negative aspect, 2'non-being'(the concept of non-being in a negative and positive aspect) and 3how the two parts coexist as one (the scale in its entirety without percieving the two seperate aspects, moving and non moving parts.)

non-being is a confusing concept for me, in the way that if it is what it is (nothing) how is there a concept for it? In other words how is there an explanation for something that doesn't exist? If it is only a necessary concept that we need to learn now to understand later that there is only 'being' because 'non-being' doesnt exist then why do we have to learn it? It seems like learning the ABC's to understand that letters are irrelevant.

Maybe the three parts would be 1 being from a positive aspect, 2 being from a negative aspect and 3 being as a whole. A lot to ponder.

 

[Andrew M.]

What is it that we're supposed to understand about duality? Any thoughts?

My thoughts on this topic: duality exists in creation. Light and dark, heat and cold, STO and STS - all exist and neither is a blight or fault that needs to be fixed. At the level of 7D or Prime Creator, all is in balance. But at the level of an individual 3D existence, such a complete balance is not discernible or achievable. At the level of 3D, one needs to choose his orientation. Without a conscious choice, we are STS by default according to the laws of our existence. But we could choose to aspire towards STO by working on discernment and will. If we try to balance the scale at our 3D level, it would keep us at the default orientation.
The concept of homeostasis may be useful as an analogy. In the human body, different parts work in a complementary fashion to maintain equilibrium of different biological parameters like blood pressure, blood sugar, pH etc. The sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems work in opposite directions - one stimulating flight or fight type emergency response and the other a relaxed and rested response. At the level of the whole human body, homeostasis and consequently health is a result of proper functioning of the individual parts. But consider as a hypothetical example that the sympathetic nervous system decided on its own to balance the scales by itself. So it stops to provide the necessary chemicals to stimulate appropriate body responses to emergency type situations since it decides that stress is bad. The result could be disastrous for the whole body.
So while contemplating duality and balance, one needs to consider where he stands in relation to the overall system of which he is a part and what role he could consciously play in his position - osit.

Very true, I think this concept has a lot to do with why the lady holding the scales is blindfolded. One would have to hold no opinion yet be open to all opinions, not sure if that's even possible in this density. If not then I guess it would be rather pointless trying to learn any truth from this 'angle' of the concept, but then if it's equal in relevance to all other angles then it would be essential to learn to be able to see the whole pie opposed to select slices.

This makes me wonder how being balanced and the act of balancing are related to being and non-being.

 

[obyvatel]

Very true, I think this concept has a lot to do with why the lady holding the scales is blindfolded. One would have to hold no opinion yet be open to all opinions, not sure if that's even possible in this density. If not then I guess it would be rather pointless trying to learn any truth from this 'angle' of the concept, but then if it's equal in relevance to all other angles then it would be essential to learn to be able to see the whole pie opposed to select slices.

If you are talking about learning and discernment, then it is important to begin to look at different points of view from different angles to arrive at a more objective view. And in this process, one has to consider pathology and gain an understanding of pathological thinking. So there is a stage of being open to different ideas after which there is an internal evaluation based on knowledge (of pathology among other things) which assigns appropriate weightage to different ideas. As per my understanding, this is an important step for progressing in our 3D existence. The failure of recognizing pathological points of view and assigning equal value to such ideas has corrupted every human institution in our existence - be it related to art, science, religion, politics etc.

[quote author=Andew M.]
This makes me wonder how being balanced and the act of balancing are related to being and non-being.
[/quote]
Are you referring to our level of existence or the entire universe? The C's have commented that our level of existence is not balanced but skewed on the side of STS. So to balance this realm, STO type energies are needed which requires individuals to polarize in the STO direction.
At the level of the universe, I believe the C's said that everything is in balance in terms of being and non-being.

Could you elaborate on your ideas of "being balanced" and the "act of balancing" from a practical perspective?

 

[Buddy]

I guess for me I see 'non-being' as essential for 'being' to exist.

I understand. But is 'non-being' essential for 'being' to exist, or could it more likely be essential for 'being' to be discerned in the realm of thought, or consciousness? To me, that is the meaning of the C's phrase: "reflection for balance". And if that is not the actual meaning, at least it has been useful for my understanding.

...non-being is a confusing concept for me, in the way that if it is what it is (nothing) how is there a concept for it? In other words how is there an explanation for something that doesn't exist?

I believe I understand this type of question as well. I think 'non-being' is just the ultimate attraction and wish for total STS. As such, it is in the realm of thought only - a delusional goal, sort of.

If it is only a necessary concept that we need to learn now to understand later that there is only 'being' because 'non-being' doesnt exist then why do we have to learn it?

Maybe the answer depends on your default view of existence. If you accept as a given, or as "ground", that 'being' is what exists, then you would have to prove that non-being exists in order to logically validate the concept. But any logician will tell you that you can't prove that a 'non-thing' exists without introducing a logical contradiction, OSIT. And they would likely say it like this:
"Nothing can logically be inferred from a nothing." But that doesn't keep some people from trying though.

As an aside, I believe the above was common knowledge back when the 'common law' prevailed and was the basis of that 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. My, how things change.

 

[monksgirl]

there was an interesting article today on the Huffington post that is along these lines of the nature of reality and how we perceive it, the article seems to mesh with this thread, and I hope you all enjoy it as much as I did. Here's a little taste "...... Evolutionary biology suggests that life has progressed from a one dimensional reality, to two dimensions to three dimensions, and there's no reason to think the evolution of life stops there. Ultimately, consciousness runs upward by insensible degrees from the lowest forms of life through to vertebrate existence, and far beyond us to extracorporeal (transcendental) existences that we can't even begin to fathom. Although we experience them piece by piece, like the songs on a record, they represent parts of a unitary reality that exists outside the classical divisions of space and time..."
and the link: _http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/biocentrism-theory-provides-glimpse-o_b_808144.html

 

[waasekom]

This may help it may not.
Is it safe to say that all things move in cycles?
and if so, what way do they go? That is a question the mind cannot understand because there are both say example a wheel, either spinning 'clockwise', or 'counter-clockwise'.
As I understand duality it is above. Whereas they both 'seem' different, but are the same because they both move in a cycle.

One teaching that has helped me in the struggles with dualistic construct is a medicine wheel, or sacred hoop, which has represented many things to many beings. I will try to illustrate:

By deduction, we have a whole which is reprresented by a circle
If you can draw one. Then place an X through the circle and you have a simple medicine wheel.
Since everything may be cyclic then each of the four sections of the X can represent each phase in the cycle. An example is obviously the cardinal directions East, South, West, North. Another example of cyclic patterns is the seasons; Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter. Perhaps the elements to correspond with the creation and continuity of life; Water, Earth, Sky, Fire.
Are there any forms of being occuring within You that are cyclic, and correspond with the universe?
To my knowledge there are four also. They are Emotions, Physical/Body, Mind, Spirit/Soul/Essence.
Now the Ego can be considered also, so where does it fit? Does the universe have an Ego?

In the middle of the X is where all intersect in the dance of consciousness and expression. This is where the answers are, the Fifth Direction is the within direction. There are two more, comprising 7 in total. The othe two are Upward and Downward. I am not trying to connote heaven or hell, as they've been misrepresented as such.

Hopefully this may help, although it may not.
I think that duality, as Bud suggests, is a construct of the mind and just as there is Man and Woman(Each in a another physical form but are both something pure on the inside) a Child is born. Just as there is Up and Down, Within is still observed. Whether it be an atom, energy cluster, organ, or body we still make a whole.


Miigwech,

 

[waasekom]

adding to this, which is all hypothetical, if YOU will;

Say that, for example;

YOU(in general, or whoever) have this whole, and it already is what is; say it is represented by a circle. A circle is this : O
and there are two initial pieces to this whole. That which is black represents the absence of space, or matter, or lack of anything. The inside is white which represents everything, although it appears empty. YOU, have to place an X on the inside just to be able to see what is actually occuring within that circle. but it is regardless still a whole even before YOU placed that X inside. To be able to recognize patterns, or what is contained within, without placing the X inside is key because there, YOU have no dualism but still can observe what is occuring through the apparent emptiness, which is full.

In linearity this wouldn't make sense, but perhaps all things that occur without our consult (i.e., natural cyclic patterns, fundamental aspects that permeate life) are paradoxical, and therefore can only be truly understood through metaphoric eyes.

 

[obyvatel]

Say that, for example;

YOU(in general, or whoever) have this whole, and it already is what is; say it is represented by a circle. A circle is this : O
and there are two initial pieces to this whole. That which is black represents the absence of space, or matter, or lack of anything. The inside is white which represents everything, although it appears empty. YOU, have to place an X on the inside just to be able to see what is actually occuring within that circle. but it is regardless still a whole even before YOU placed that X inside. To be able to recognize patterns, or what is contained within, without placing the X inside is key because there, YOU have no dualism but still can observe what is occuring through the apparent emptiness, which is full.

In linearity this wouldn't make sense, but perhaps all things that occur without our consult (i.e., natural cyclic patterns, fundamental aspects that permeate life) are paradoxical, and therefore can only be truly understood through metaphoric eyes.

In the context of creation, you are already inside this circle. So the question of duality in creation needs to be addressed from the perspective of one who is inside the circle. Reminded me of a story in Theodore Illion's "Darkness Over Tibet".
[quote author=Darkness Over Tibet]
Once upon a time there were clever philosophers. They did not believe in the Creator. “We follow our own light, ” they said. And in all matters they only relied on the light of introspection.

Then they came across the Devil.

“What a monster!” said one of them. “What a comfort to know that nothing is real and everything is a mere reflection of ourselves!”

“You are right,” put in a second philosopher. “Everything is subjective; nothing is objective.”

Then the Devil opened his mouth and swallowed them.

When they arrived inside the Devil’s body the clever philosophers said with a superior smile: “Is it not obvious that we were right? The monster has disappeared.”
[/quote]

 

[waasekom]

In the context of creation, you are already inside this circle. So the question of duality in creation needs to be addressed from the perspective of one who is inside the circle. Reminded me of a story in Theodore Illion's "Darkness Over Tibet".

How can we do that in linearity, or thought, or through images?
We already are on the inside. and as I stated previously

I think that duality, as Bud suggests, is a construct of the mind and just as there is Man and Woman(Each in a another physical form but are both something pure on the inside) a Child is born. Just as there is Up and Down, Within is still observed. Whether it be an atom, energy cluster, organ, or body we still make a whole.

Which means that regardless of how we preceive anything, we are still a whole, or in the circle, for we are the circle. The idea of duality is a construct. Because we've been conditioned only to see the emptiness of the circle and not recognize its fullfilment as it just is. Therefore, to observe it here on the mental level is to place an X through it so 'see' it. But it regardless a whole.

SO no matter what YOU are called (or whatever), you are still that complete circle, already fullfilled. Now, how can this be realized when you are not the one seeking yourself for who you really are, and still functioning within the conditioned mindset?

 

[anart]

In the context of creation, you are already inside this circle. So the question of duality in creation needs to be addressed from the perspective of one who is inside the circle. Reminded me of a story in Theodore Illion's "Darkness Over Tibet".

How can we do that in linearity, or thought, or through images?
We already are on the inside. and as I stated previously

I think that duality, as Bud suggests, is a construct of the mind and just as there is Man and Woman(Each in a another physical form but are both something pure on the inside) a Child is born. Just as there is Up and Down, Within is still observed. Whether it be an atom, energy cluster, organ, or body we still make a whole.

Which means that regardless of how we preceive anything, we are still a whole, or in the circle, for we are the circle. The idea of duality is a construct. Because we've been conditioned only to see the emptiness of the circle and not recognize its fullfilment as it just is. Therefore, to observe it here on the mental level is to place an X through it so 'see' it. But it regardless a whole.

SO no matter what YOU are called (or whatever), you are still that complete circle, already fullfilled. Now, how can this be realized when you are not the one seeking yourself for who you really are, and still functioning within the conditioned mindset?

waasekom, what is your point? I don't mean to be rude, but reading what you write is pretty close to impossible. Can you please state - clearly and concisely - exactly what you are trying to say in a way that a child would understand. If you can't do that, you do not understand it yourself.